Mere non-recovery of a railway ticket does not negate bona fide passenger status.

On 12 June 2003, Shokhilal Koli was travelling from Godhra towards Uttar Pradesh in Sabarmati Express, Train No. 9165, when he fell from the running train between Derol and Bakrol, at KM No. 444/24–26.

The claimant, his wife, asserted that he was a bona fide passenger holding a valid ticket, which was lost in the incident.

The Railway Administration contended that he was travelling without a ticket and that the occurrence did not constitute an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim, principally because no ticket was recovered or produced and because the claimant had not initially specified the train number.

It also considered that there was variance between the pleadings and evidence.

The claimant challenged the dismissal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

1. Whether the deceased’s fall from the running Sabarmati Express constituted an “untoward incident” under the Railways Act, 1989.

2. Whether the claimant was required to produce or prove recovery of a valid railway ticket to establish that the deceased was a bona fide passenger.

3. Whether the Railway Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the basis of the non-production of the ticket and alleged inconsistencies in the claimant’s evidence.

The Court applied Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989, under which accidental falls from a train constitute “untoward incidents” and railway liability is generally based on a no-fault or strict-liability regime, subject to statutory exceptions.

Under Explanation (ii) to Section 124-A, a “passenger” includes a person who has purchased a valid ticket for travel in a passenger train.

Relying on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572, Doli Rani Saha v. Union of India, (2024) 9 SCC 656, Kamukayi v. Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116, and Rajni v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 986, the Court held that mere non-recovery or non-production of a ticket is not, by itself, fatal to a claim.

The claimant bears an initial burden to establish a prima facie case, which may be discharged through a credible affidavit and surrounding circumstances; the burden then shifts to the Railways.

Proceedings are governed by the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, and hyper-technical procedural objections should not defeat the beneficial purpose of the legislation.

The Court found that the Station Superintendent’s memo, the investigation material, and the Railway Administration’s own case established that the Loco Pilot had seen the deceased fall from Train No. 9165 while it was running between Derol and Bakrol.

This fact sufficiently proved the occurrence of an untoward incident.

The claimant had filed an affidavit asserting that the deceased was travelling with a valid ticket, thereby discharging the initial evidentiary burden.

The burden consequently shifted to the Railways to establish that the deceased was travelling without a ticket.

The Railways produced no sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption.

The Tribunal’s insistence on production or recovery of the ticket, and its reliance on alleged pleading discrepancies, was therefore inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and amounted to a hyper-technical approach.

It held that the deceased was a bona fide passenger and that his fall from the running train was an untoward incident giving rise to statutory compensation.

The claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the incident until realization, or Rs. 8 lakhs as a flat amount, whichever was higher.

The Railway Administration was directed to deposit the decretal amount before the Tribunal within six weeks, after which it was to be disbursed to the claimant through RTGS/NEFT following due verification and identification.